Sunday, July 03, 2022

GET READY: JPMorgan Sees ‘Stratospheric’ $380 Oil on Worst-Case Russian Cut

Four months ago on March 2022, Natasha Kaneva, Head of Global Commodities Strategy at J.P. Morgan. had this to say, "So large is the immediate supply shock that we believe prices need to increase to $120/bbl and stay there for months to incentivize demand destruction. . ."

Markets

Natasha Kaneva, Head of Global Commodities Strategy at J.P. Morgan.

An employee walks across the top of an oil storage tank at an oil field near Salym, Russia. — An employee walks across the top of an oil storage tank at an oil field near Salym, Russia.
Source: Bloomberg

By Joe Carroll July 1, 2022, 7:59 PM UTC

"Global oil prices could reach a “stratospheric” $380 a barrel if US and European penalties prompt Russia to inflict retaliatory crude-output cuts, JPMorgan Chase & Co. analysts warned.

The G7 Group of Seven nations are hammering out a complicated mechanism to cap the price fetched by Russian oil in a bid to tighten the screws on Vladimir Putin’s war machine in Ukraine. But given Moscow’s robust fiscal position, the nation can afford to slash daily crude production by 5 million barrels without excessively damaging the economy, JPMorgan analysts including Natasha Kaneva wrote in a note to clients."

SEE THIS:

G-7 Russian Oil Price Cap Idea Beloved by Economists Faces Harsh Reality - Bloomberg

www.bloomberg.com › news › articles › g-7-oil-price-cap-idea-beloved-by...

G7 Russian oil cap from www.bloomberg.com

5 days ago · The G7 price cap on Russian oil can be highly effective at cutting the flood of money to Russia ...
Duration: 2:15
Posted: 5 days ago

RELATED Negotiators want to install a system that limits the flow of money to Russia while allowing oil's availability to large buyers like China and India, in order to avoid further price shocks; the U.S. has suggested applying restrictions on insurance and other services needed to transport Russian oil.

But critics expressed their doubts about the cap doing anything other than exacerbating an already dire situation.

Oil settles higher as major producers flag capacity limits

Reuters

G7 agrees to explore cap on Russian oil price · Macron tells Biden that UAE, Saudi can barely raise oil output · Political unrest in Ecuador,...
4 days ago

As G-7 Talks Price Caps, Russian Oil Gets More Expensive

Bloomberg.com

Russia is getting higher prices for its oil as strong demand in Asia undermines western powers' efforts to curb revenues to Moscow's war machine...
4 days ago

Japan PM Fumio Kishida says G7 mulling to slash Russian oil prices by half: Report

Republic World

In his latest remarks, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida stated that the Group of Seven (G7) nations have decided to impose a cap on Russian...
1 hour ago

Germany warns possible price caps for Russian oil far from ...

Reuters

On Tuesday G7 leaders agreed to explore "the feasibility of introducing temporary import price caps" on Russian fossil fuel, including oil,...
3 days ago

G7 leaders pledge to pursue price caps on Russian oil

Axios

Members of the G7 on Tuesday agreed to explore the possibility of imposing price caps on Russian oil as they reiterated vows to "impose...
5 days ago

G7 aims to hurt Russia with price cap on oil exports

Talks on curbing Moscow’s energy profits to continue on Monday as India and others join Bavaria summit

=====================================================

BACKGROUND 10 March 2022

What Is the Outlook for Oil Prices?

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has sent energy prices to historic highs, as the conflict has resulted in high market volatility and a coordinated round of sanctions targeting Russia’s economy. J.P. Morgan Research examines the outlook for energy prices as the potential for an ongoing conflict poses potential risks to supply

Updated March 10, 2022

What’s Next For Oil And Gas Prices As Sanctions On Russia Intensify

jpmorgan.com

Global commodity markets have surged to multi-year highs, with oil prices topping $130 per barrel, while natural gas, aluminium and wheat have all hit fresh record highs since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent sanctions that have been imposed on Russia as a result. An extended period of geopolitical tension and elevated risk premiums across all underlying commodities is now expected, with far reaching implications across global commodity markets.

The unfolding conflict has vast implications and J.P. Morgan Research has revised commodity price forecasts up 10-20% across the sector. Russia's impact on the global energy balance is meaningful, with even the U.S., a major gas and oil producer, importing Russian crude and Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) cargoes to meet its consumption needs. In this report, J.P. Morgan looks at how geopolitical tensions could impact oil and gas prices in the months ahead."

With a 12% market share, Russia is also one of largest global oil producers. Almost half of Russia’s oil and condensate exports are directed to Europe.

China is the single-largest importing country of Russia’s crude oil, accounting for almost a third of the country’s oil exports.

Russia's oil exports are transported via Transneft's pipeline system that connects Russian oil fields to Europe and Asia. With its 1.5 mbd (million barrels per day) Druzhba pipeline supplies Russian oil to European refineries in Poland, Germany, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia via Belarus and Ukraine.

U.S. imports about 600-800 kbd (thousand barrels per day) of Russian oil, which mainly consists of fuel oil feedstocks and some crude.

Russian oil imports, as a share of U.S. total oil imports, hit a record high of 10% in May 2021, according to data from U.S. Energy Information Administration, up from 4% in 2008. The rise in Russian imports coincided with the imposition of U.S. sanctions on Venezuela in 2019, as U.S. refiners looked to replace some of their heavy oil supplies that were lost by other sources.

While the U.S. and its allies have so far stopped short of imposing penalties directly on Russian oil and gas, it has become increasingly clear that Russian oil is being ostracized. The preliminary Russian crude oil loadings for March revealed a 1 mbd drop in the loadings from the Black Sea ports, 1 mbd drop from the Baltics and 0.5 mbd drop in the Far East. In addition, there is an estimated 2.5 mbd loss in oil products loadings from the Black Sea, for a total loss of 4.5 mbd.

Up until recently, Russia was exporting about 6.5 mbd of oil and oil products, with two-thirds clearing through the now-frozen seaborne market. Out of that, Europe and the U.S. accounted for 4.3 mbd, with Asia and Belarus rounding to 2.2 mbd. As the invasion persists, almost 70% of Russian oil is struggling to find buyers. So far, Russia is not withholding volumes. However, Russian producers are facing difficulties selling their oil, with Russian benchmark Urals oil being offered at a record $20 discount to international benchmark, with no bids.

“So large is the immediate supply shock that we believe prices need to increase to $120/bbl and stay there for months to incentivize demand destruction, assuming no immediate Iranian volumes,” said Natasha Kaneva, Head of Global Commodities Strategy at J.P. Morgan.

This could result in a 1.2 mbd hit to this year’s demand, bringing 2022 oil consumption 550 kbd below 2019 levels. If disruption to Russian volumes were to last throughout the year, the Brent oil price could exit the year at $185/bbl, likely leading to a massive 3 mbd drop in the global oil demand. Key to this significant upside is the assumption that even if shale production responds to the price signal, it cannot grow by more than 1.4 mbd this year, given labor and infrastructure constraints.

BEWARE THE REDUX...

Uncovering untold secrets of NATO --- monstrous remnant from Cold War days

Source: Xinhua

Editor: huaxia

2022-04-26 19:33:00

Source: Xinhua

Editor: huaxia

2022-04-26 19:33:00

0:00:00

/2:07

* Both history and military alliance theory seem to predict that once the Cold

* Both history and military alliance theory seem to predict that once the Cold War had ended, NATO would have disintegrated. Unfortunately this has not been the case. Far from being fully disbanded, NATO has been bent on expansion.

* The relationship between the United States and its European allies within NATO is fundamentally unequal. NATO contributes to the United States' hegemonic position in Western Europe by allowing U.S. military bases and troops to be stationed in the region.

* Since 1999, NATO has expanded eastward five times, advancing more than 1,000 km all the way to the Russian border, gradually pushing Russia into a corner.

* NATO forces launched 78 days of bombardment against Yugoslavia in 1999, killing or injuring over 8,000 civilians and displacing approximately 1 million people. Other countries, including Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, have also fallen victim to the U.S.-led NATO's belligerence and violations of human rights.

BEIJING, April 26 (Xinhua) -- As the Russia-Ukraine conflict rages on, tensions between NATO and Russia have verged on downright hostilities.

The gloomy reality on the ground brings up a question as to why, more than 30 years after the end of the Cold War, the world appears to have regressed to where it ever was.

Thanks to their intentionally neglected nuance in depicting the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Western media have framed Russia as the lone villain. Close scrutiny of regional geopolitics, however, makes clear that NATO, a remnant from Cold War days, bears responsibility for precipitating the current crisis, not least for its relentless expansion at the expense of Russia's security concerns...

GLOBAL PEACE DISRUPTOR

Russia has long been accused by the U.S.-led NATO of violating basic international rules and norms and stoking global instability. Ironically, it is precisely what people in many parts of the world believe Washington and NATO have been doing.

Speaking in March at a ceremony marking the Remembrance Day of victims of the 1999 NATO aggression against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, President of the Republic of Serbia Aleksandar Vucic condemned the NATO attack as "brutal, horrible, criminal, (and) inhuman."

Though that small country "hardly did anything wrong to anyone... that small country and great people just wanted to be on their own, to guard their hearths, and nothing more," Vucic said, "some others, 19 big ones, wanted to show all their courage, arrogance and brutality on a small unconquered people like the Serbs."

NATO forces launched 78 days of bombardment against Yugoslavia in 1999, killing or injuring over 8,000 civilians and displacing approximately 1 million people.

Other countries, including Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, have also fallen victim to the U.S.-led NATO's belligerence and violations of human rights.

In the two-decade-long Afghanistan war fought nominally to protect civilians, NATO's airstrikes have killed thousands of civilians.

Din Mohammad, a 73-year-old Afghan man from the hamlet of Lakani in the Panjwayi district of Kandahar province in south Afghanistan, still remembered the night ten years ago when the U.S. military unleashed airstrikes on his hometown, killing 63 civilians and injuring dozens more.

"The bodies of men, women and children were lying in blood and the crying of the injured was heard from every corner of the house," he told Xinhua.

"Innocent people were killed in their beds without committing any crime," said Mohammad, who lost 17 family members, including five children, that night.

After the U.S.-led NATO intervention in 2011, Libya sank into civil war and became a breeding ground for instability and terrorism.

As Alan Kuperman, associate professor of public affairs at the University of Texas at Austin, has noted, "Libya has not only failed to evolve into a democracy; it has devolved into a failed state. Violent deaths and other human rights abuses have increased severalfold" after the NATO military attacks.

In Iraq, between 184,382 and 207,156 civilians have died from "direct war-related violence caused by the United States, its allies, the Iraqi military and police, and opposition forces" from the time of the invasion through October 2019, according to the Costs of War project at the U.S. Brown University.

The death toll is "likely much higher," as not all war-related deaths were accurately recorded, it said.

(Video reporter: Lu Jiafei, Feng Yasong, Shu Chang, He Fei; Video editors: Lin Lin, Cao Ying, Zhu

NATO - Summary on a Map - YouTube

www.youtube.com › watch

Video for NATO war interventions, animated timeline

May 30, 2022 · The history of NATO on maps, from the end of World War II, until the invasion of Ukraine by ...
Duration: 15:55
Posted: May 30, 2022

Home/Articles/Realism & Restraint/The War for Globalism in Ukraine

The American Conservative

Washington’s proxy war in Ukraine is the globalist scheme to transcend the continuity of history, culture, and geography embodied in the nation-state.

Beware the redux: America’s violent Cold War history

Hollywood loves a sequel, but the Russia-Ukraine crisis has made the possibility real, and no one should want to see it.

William Hartung

Responsible Statecraft

A growing chorus of pundits and policymakers has suggested that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine marks the beginning of a new Cold War. If so, that means trillions of additional dollars for the Pentagon in the years to come coupled with a more aggressive military posture in every corner of the world.

Before this country succumbs to calls for a return to Cold War-style Pentagon spending, it’s important to note that the United States is already spending substantially more than it did at the height of the Korean and Vietnam Wars or, in fact, any other moment in that first Cold War. Even before the invasion of Ukraine began, the Biden administration’s proposed Pentagon budget (as well as related work like nuclear-warhead development at the Department of Energy) was already guaranteed to soar even higher than that, perhaps to $800 billion or more for 2023.

Here’s the irony: going back to Cold War levels of Pentagon funding would mean reducing, not increasing spending. Of course, that’s anything but what the advocates of such military outlays had in mind, even before the present crisis

> REFERENCES AND RESOURCES

Grand Illusions: The Impact of Misperceptions About Russia on U.S. Policy

Getting Russia right—assessing its capabilities and intentions, the long-term drivers of its policy and threat perceptions, as well as its accomplishments—is essential because the alternative of misreading them is a recipe for wasted resources, distorted national priorities, and increased risk of confrontation.

Eugene Rumer, Richard Sikowsky June 30, 2021

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Introduction

A critical examination of repeated U.S. policy misfires in dealing with Russia and its intentions and capabilities is long overdue. Russia is frequently portrayed as an expansionist power with global ambitions determined—in partnership with China—to sweep away the world’s democracies and the liberal international order and create a new global order based on illiberal principles and rules made by the United States’ two authoritarian great power competitors.¹

But it is just as often dismissed as a state in decline, possibly terminal. Russia is described as clinging to the remnants of its superpower status and suffering from a demographic decline that cannot be reversed in the foreseeable future, an economy overly dependent on resource extraction that it is unwilling and unable to modernize, and a sclerotic political system.²

A more nuanced understanding of Russia’s geopolitical intentions and capabilities is needed. Exaggerating its military might and economic potential—and the Kremlin’s will to use these tools for coercive purposes—can lead to a waste of resources at best and a dangerous arms race and confrontation at worst. Conversely, underestimating Russia’s capabilities and its will to use them when, in the Kremlin’s view, this is warranted by what is at stake can lead to miscalculation and an escalation of tensions that also increases the risk of military conflict. It is equally important to understand those drivers of Russia’s policy that determine its resolve to use military force, especially in a crisis. . ."

Listen to Aaron David Miller, Eugene Rumer, and Richard Sokolsky discuss the importance of getting Russia right for U.S. foreign policy.

Source: https://carnegieendowment.org/2021/06/30/grand-illusions-impact-of-misperceptions-about-russia-on-u.s.-policy-pub-84845

GLOBAL CONFLICT TRACKER Link >> https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker

HISTORY OF NATO

America’s Longest Foreign Wars

Niall McCarthy

Statista Infographics

Afghanistan

Visualising the impact of 20 years of war

Al Jazeera

aljazeera.com

Here's what 20 years of war has done to the Afghan people. As the US withdraws its troops, we look at the latest figures on human suffering.

The human cost of war An estimated 241,000 people have died as a direct result of the war since the US invaded Afghanistan to topple the Taliban in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks in the US, according to the most recent figures from Brown University’s Costs of War. Hundreds of thousands more, mostly civilians, have died due to hunger, disease and injury caused by the devastating war. . .

The US and NATO's longest war

The US under President George W Bush invaded Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, less than a month after the September 11 attacks in the US. The coalition he led accused the ruling Taliban regime of harbouring Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader who claimed responsibility for the attacks.

The war in Afghanistan spanned nearly 20 years and four US presidents.

Over the 20-year war, 50 NATO and partner nations contributed forces to the missions in Afghanistan. At its peak in 2011, nearly 140,000 US and allied forces were in the country.

The economic cost of war

The war in Afghanistan is estimated to have cost the US $2.26 trillion to date, according to the Cost of War project. The bulk of the spending, $933bn, was allocated to the US Department of Defense war budget, later supplemented by another $443bn.

The rest of the money includes $296bn for veterans’ medical and disability care and $59bn towards the Department of State’s war budget. The US has also paid some $530bn in interest for its heavy borrowing throughout the war. The US has spent $144bn on Afghanistan reconstruction initiatives.

These figures do not include the lifetime care for veterans nor future interest payments, which means even after the US leaves Afghanistan it will continue to pay for the war.

====================================================

The US military presence in Europe has been declining for 30 years – the current crisis in Ukraine may reverse that trend

Michael A. Allen Published: January 25, 2022 8.28am EST

The Conversation

Up to 8,500 U.S. troops could soon be heading to Eastern Europe – bolstering an American military presence in the continent that has been in decline since the end of the Cold War.

News of the possible deployment, announced on Jan. 24, 2022, by the Pentagon, comes as Russia and the United States continue to maneuver in the face of an escalating crisis in Ukraine.

We are a team of researchers who study U.S. troop deployments and how they affect the security, perceptions, economy, social sphere and environment of host countries. Understanding the changing U.S. military commitment to European countries helps us understand what is at stake in Europe and U.S. credibility in the region.

US troop numbers in Europe have fallen since Cold War's end

A significant drop in America's military presence in Europe coincided with the end of the Soviet Union in 1991, and then again as the US got bogged down in conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Europe

OFFICAL INFORMATION

Operations and missions: past and present

Last updated: 14 Jun. 2022 13:11

NATO is an active and leading contributor to peace and security on the international stage. It promotes democratic values and is committed to the peaceful resolution of disputes. However, if diplomatic efforts fail, it has the military capacity to undertake crisis management operations alone or in cooperation with other countries and international organisations.

Current operations and missions

Terminated operations and missions

From 1949 to the early 1990s

NATO in Afghanistan - Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the United States, the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) was established under the request of the Afghan authorities and a UN mandate in 2001. ISAF was led by NATO from August 2003 to December 2014 and was succeeded on 1 January 2015 by the Resolute Support Mission (RSM), which was terminated early September 2021.

Operation Active Endeavor - Operation Active Endeavour (OAE) was initiated in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to deter, defend, disrupt and protect against terrorist activity in the Mediterranean. It helped to secure one of the busiest trade routes in the world and was among eight initiatives launched by the Alliance in 2001, in solidarity with the United States. It was an Article 5 operation, i.e., a collective defence operation that, initially only involved NATO member countries until it started accepting non-NATO countries' participation in 2004.

NATO and Iraq - NATO conducted a relatively small but important support operation in Iraq from 2004 to 2011 that consisted of training, mentoring and assisting the Iraqi Security Forces. At the Istanbul Summit in June 2004, the Allies rose above their differences and agreed to be part of the international effort to help Iraq establish effective and accountable security forces. The outcome was the creation of the NATO Training Mission in Iraq (NTM-I). The NTM-I delivered its training, advice and mentoring support in a number of different settings. All NATO member countries contributed to the training effort either in or outside of Iraq, through financial contributions or donations of equipment. In parallel and reinforcing this initiative, NATO also worked with the Iraqi government on a structured cooperation framework to develop the Alliance's long-term relationship with Iraq.

NATO and Libya -

Following the popular uprising against the Gadhafi regime in Benghazi, Libya, in February 2011, the UN Security Council adopted Resolutions 1970 and 1973 in support of the Libyan people, "condemning the gross and systematic violation of human rights". The resolutions introduced active measures including a no-fly zone, an arms embargo and the authorisation for member countries, acting as appropriate through regional organisations, to take "all necessary measures" to protect Libyan civilians.

Initially, NATO enforced the no-fly zone and then, on 31 March 2011, NATO took over sole command and control of all military operations for Libya. The NATO-led Operation Unified Protector had three distinct components:

the enforcement of an arms embargo on the high seas of the Mediterranean to prevent the transfer of arms, related material and mercenaries to Libya;
the enforcement of a no-fly-zone in order to prevent any aircraft from bombing civilian targets; and
air and naval strikes against those military forces involved in attacks or threats to attack Libyan civilians and civilian-populated areas.

The UN mandate was carried out to the letter and the operation was terminated on 31 October 2011 after having fulfilled its objectives.

Assisting the African Union in Darfur, Sudan - The African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) aimed to end violence and improve the humanitarian situation in a region that has been suffering from conflict since 2003. From June 2005 to 31 December 2007, NATO provided air transport for some 37,000 AMIS personnel, as well as trained and mentored over 250 AMIS officials. While NATO's support to this mission ended when AMIS was succeeded by the UN-AU Mission in Darfur (UNAMID), the Alliance immediately expressed its readiness to consider any request for support to the new peacekeeping mission.

Second Gulf Conflict - During the second Gulf Conflict, NATO deployed NATO AWACS radar aircraft and air defence batteries to enhance the defence of Türkiye in an operation called Display Deterrence. This operation started on 20 February 2003 and lasted until 16 April 2003. The AWACS aircraft flew 100 missions with a total of 950 flying hours.

Saturday, July 02, 2022

COUNTER-NARRATIVES TO WESTERN MEDIA: Keeping NATO Madrid Summit in Perspective (Russia and China)

Stories in the media: including one about oil prices rising even more in Q3 2022 to $135/barrel

Press review: Russia’s gesture of goodwill and takeaways from NATO’s Madrid summit

Top stories from the Russian press on Friday, July 1st

Nezavisimaya Gazeta: NATO’s Madrid summit launches new standoff

The Madrid-hosted NATO summit, which has concluded, may be considered a turning point in the alliance’s history. Not only will it accept new members, with the process of the Euro-Atlantic integration of Sweden and Finland being launched, but also the statements and documents approved in Madrid, including NATO’s new Strategic Concept, indicate that the US-led military bloc adopted a stance opposing the West’s geopolitical rivals chiefly Russia and, to the lesser extent, so far, China.

> NATO members agreed on an arms race, the expansion of its ranks and its beefed-up military presence in certain countries, that is, to all the steps that previously had been problematic for the military alliance.

Associate Professor of the Department of Integration Processes at MGIMO Alexander Tevdoy-Burmuli told the newspaper that, although increasing defense spending requires substantial budget policy adjustments in many NATO countries, they will gradually achieve it. "The necessity of doing so up to a certain point did not seem obvious to them. Now it does. Evidently, the countries of the alliance won’t move towards this at the same rate. This trend is absolutely clear," the expert thinks. According to him, the largest member states will be in the lead. The expenses of smaller countries will depend on how much the leaders are ready to spend. . .

========================================================================

China calls NATO ‘systemic challenge’ to global peace and stability

"We want to state openly that NATO is exaggerating and inflating the so-called Chinese threat and this is an absolutely futile endeavor," Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Zhao Lijian remarked

Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesman Zhao Lijian

BEIJING, June 30. /TASS/. NATO itself is a systematic challenge to global peace and stability, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Zhao Lijian said on Thursday, commenting on the alliance’s new strategic concept.

"NATO itself is a systemic challenge to global peace and stability," the Chinese diplomat said at a regular news conference. The US-led organization, while positioning itself as a defensive bloc, has sought to advance into new areas and domains, he added. He also said "NATO has the blood of the global population on its hands."

"We want to state openly that NATO is exaggerating and inflating the so-called Chinese threat and this is an absolutely futile endeavor," Zhao Lijian remarked. He urged the military bloc to immediately stop its baseless criticism and provocative statements against China and refrain from Cold War ideology and the zero-sum game concept.

At Wednesday’s summit in Madrid, NATO leaders agreed on a new strategic concept in which Russia was identified as "the most significant and direct threat to the alliance’s security." NATO addressed China for the first time, pointing to the systemic challenges posed by the country."

========================================================================

Izvestia: Moscow embarks on goodwill gesture to ease global food dilemma

Russia has pulled out its garrison from Snake Island in the Black Sea. Moscow embarked on this goodwill gesture and demonstrated to the global community that it is not preventing the exports of agricultural products from Ukraine, the Russian Defense Ministry said on June 30. Experts note that it didn’t make much sense to hold on to the island from a military point of view. The Russian Navy has complete superiority over its adversary in the Black Sea and if needed, Russia’s forces can be swiftly redeployed to the island.

Once Ukraine gets MLRS and SPGs from the West, the island will be shelled constantly, according to military expert Dmitry Boltenkov. In his opinion, the Ukrainian army will definitely attempt an amphibious assault on the island because in the absence of real victories they need a media triumph. "They won’t miss a chance to show off on Snake Island," the expert said, noting that Russia is capable of completely eliminating any assault troops or of retaking the island at any time.

"The entire narrative that Russia is preventing grain exports from Odessa and fueling world hunger is artificial and contrived," says former UN Deputy Secretary General Sergey Ordzhonikidze, stressing that the situation was created to pressure Russia.

> "Ukraine provides about 1% of the world’s grain. The figure looks significant in tonnes but in the global format it is absolutely unsubstantial. Additionally, Snake Island did not pose any threat to maritime traffic in that area of the Black Sea, but mines laid by Ukraine in those waters do. They’ve been told over and over again to demine the Odessa port yet they haven’t done that," the diplomat said, adding that the vessels carrying grain should be inspected for weapons. According to him, Ukraine smuggles arms using passenger trains and civilian trucks and will attempt to do the same at sea.

Nezavisimaya Gazeta: Takeaways from the Sixth Caspian Summit

The Caspian Summit of heads of state has concluded in Ashgabat with the signing of a communique. The presidents of Russia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Iran gave high marks to the level of cooperation, expressed concern over the shallowing Caspian and agreed upon maintaining the necessary level of security in the region. Moscow managed to resolve an important issue of preventing joint naval drills in the Caspian with participants from extra-regional countries.

Despite preliminary statements by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on the importance of the Sixth Caspian Summit, no significant documents have been signed upon its completion. Moreover, the 2018 Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea remains suspended since Iran still has not ratified it.

"It is precisely the incomplete nature of this document that allowed, for example, Azerbaijan to hold military drills on the Caspian coast and in its waters, with the participation of non-coastal countries, primarily, Turkey and Pakistan. And the military of NATO member states from time to time indicate their presence within the framework of various joint programs, and on the Caspian coast as well," expert on Central Asia Serdar Aytakov told the newspaper.

The summit, even without signing any new important documents, was extremely essential to Russia for several reasons, according to Senior Researcher at the IMEMO Center for Post-Soviet Studies Stanislav Pritchin. Among them he lists the failure of Western countries to isolate Russia on the international stage and the readiness of Russia’s neighbors and partners to continue political dialogue and cooperation despite all the sanctions and Western pressure. Additionally, the summit confirmed the basic principles of regional security and the absence of any third-party military presence. According to the expert, the summit made it possible to discuss specific economic projects, new transportation routes and opened new horizons for cooperation in the absence of any prospects of interaction with EU countries. "The Russian president noted that in 2021 the trade volume with the region’s countries grew 35%, totaling $34 bln, while by April 2022 it increased by another 12%," the expert told the newspaper.

Vedomosti: Indonesian leader tries to settle issue with Putin’s participation in G20 summit

On June 30, Russian President Vladimir Putin began a meeting with his Indonesian counterpart Joko Widodo with a reminder that in a phone conversation the latter was interested in the issue of settling the Donbass crisis and promised to inform him about "our vision of this problem." In the open part of the conversation, Widodo focused on problems with grain and fertilizer exports.

Indonesia ranks fourth worldwide in terms of population, thus, it carries certain obligations in the global community and wants to increase its status to become a global power, according to Leading Researcher of the Center for Southeast Asia at the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Oriental Studies Alexey Drugov.

The expert noted that currently Indonesia is chairing G20 with the group’s summit scheduled to take place in Bali on November 15-16. Due to this, Indonesia has to regulate the issues related to the Russian-Ukrainian conflict and Putin’s participation. According to him, Indonesian elites see the Ukrainian situation not as a bilateral conflict but as a struggle between NATO along with the West against Russia, with Indonesia being the first possible Asian mediator in the conflict. Widodo was the first Asian leader to visit Kiev after the onset of Russia’s special military operation, Drugov noted.

The choice of participation format at the G20 summit is now up to Putin and depends on his intentions. The invitation from Indonesia has been received and it hardly involves remote participation, according to Russian International Affairs Council Director General Andrey Kortunov. Yet a face-to-face format, even though it establishes Russia's presence more explicitly, also involves a possible escalation and is fraught with a display of unfriendly attitudes by about 50% of the G20 leaders, the expert noted.

Kommersant: OPEC+ deal’s fate hangs in the balance

As expected, the biggest oil producers agreed to boost production in August by 648,000 barrels per day within the framework of the OPEC+ deal. Despite the current sanctions which entailed difficulties with raw materials exports, in the summer, Russia hopes to go from the current 9.9 mln barrels per day to 11 mln barrels according to its quota. The critical issue is whether the coordination of efforts by OPEC+ participants will continue after September when the deal is formally over.

High prices are caused by the lack of oil supply, the agency noted

MOSCOW, June 27. /TASS/. Brent oil prices may rise to $135 per barrel in the second half of the year amid insufficient supply on the world market, the IHS Markit consulting agency (part of S&P Global) forecasts in its analytical report, which was available to TASS.

Currently, Brent oil price is $110 per barrel. However, already in the third quarter of 2022, the price may rise to $136.3 per barrel, IHS experts believe. In general, in the second half of the year, the price of oil will stay at $135 per barrel, and on average for the year it will be $122 per barrel, IHS adds.

According to agency experts, high prices are caused by the lack of oil supply.

The experts name the decline in oil production in Russia due to sanctions, low probability of reaching an agreement on the Iranian nuclear deal, which will not allow Iranian oil to be brought to the market, as well as the reduction in free production capacity in OPEC+ countries as the factors affecting the global oil production.

According to IHS, as of the second quarter of 2022, the amount of free production capacity in OPEC+ countries is estimated at 2.7 million barrels per day. However, by the end of the year, the agency expects the figure to fall to 1.8 million barrels per day and only Saudi Arabia and the UAE will retain the opportunity to increase oil production.

IHS experts also draw attention to the transformation of the global oil market. For example, oil from Russia, Iran and Venezuela is now sold cheaper than raw materials from other countries, since there are fewer buyers for this oil due to its place of origin, the agency notes. According to IHS, this is a sign of "fragmentation of the oil market." "The global oil market that we knew no longer exists," experts conclude.

According to Director of the ACRA corporate rating group Vasily Tanurkov, Russia and Saudi Arabia will stop closely coordinating their efforts on the market but this is not particularly important since the vast majority of OPEC+ countries already do not have free capacities to significantly increase production. He thinks that oil prices may stabilize but this is rather due to the global economy slowing down and not because of the growing market supply.

According to Anton Usov of Kept, the OPEC+ countries will continue to adhere to the deal’s parameters even after it is formally over. He even does not rule out the possibility of a formal extension of the agreements in order to maintain an acceptable price "while there is an opportunity to make money." The analyst stresses that the alliance participants are interested in maintaining a high price in order to increase their earnings."

TASS is not responsible for the material quoted in these press reviews.

MesaZona > Table of Contents : Here's The Menu. Enjoy